Could Richard Gephardt have won some of the red states

[Tony_FLADEM]

had he been the nominee.

I've been thinking about this alot the past few days.

Could he have appealed to rural voters?

[fernsibal]

1. Missouri

though he probably would have lost Oregon.

[StopTheMorans]

2. wouldn't have swung the election

n/t

[rwheeler31]

3. Richard Gephardt is a great and good man.

The fear and sex campaign with greedy Americans won out,Kerry was our best hope. I think that he and Edwards had an honorable run.

[Mike L]

40. "fear and sex campaign"

What's the "sex" part-- Jenna?

I got the impression that Daddy was pimping the little sweet thing to the male constituency at his campaign stops.

[tedoll78]

4. I suspect Missouri.

And maybe Ohio.

But I wonder if New Hampshire would've went for him.

Lemme do that math quickly.

Carry the 7..
Add those 11..

Gephardt/??? --> 270EVs. With Iowa, Missouri, and the Kerry states.
Bush/Cheney ---> 268EVs.

Still, we'll never know what kind of a campaign he would've run..

[Mike L]

41. Gephardt would have run a tough, proactive campaign.

He called * a "Miserable Failure" back in Sept 03.

[eridani]

58. He could run a campaign without the physical energy--

--to show up for even 10% of his congressional votes? I like the guy's pro-labor record, but he appeared, and probably was, way too tired for a campaign.

[Warpy]

5. Gep knows how to talk to ordinary working people

and I don't mean talking to them like they're a bunch of morons. He knows what their issues are and what should be done about them. That's why he picked up so many union endorsements in the primaries.

Who knows how well he would have done? He wouldn't have been hit with the Swill Boat vets, but I'm sure Rove would have manufactured some equivalent filth.

Kerry, like Gore, was a decent candidate who got rotten advice from the same source Gore did. It's high time to focus on that source and make sure they don't hurt any more candidates. Undoubtedly the same folks would have ruined Gephardt's campaign, too.

[robbedvoter]

6. UH, NO. Anti-war people needed a voice - he wasn't it.

I am talking about people fed up with the war - who were NOT DEMOCRATS/progressives. Kerry's problem too - to a somewhat lesser extent, though he won anyway

[AP]

8. I don't even know anyone anecdotally who didn't vote for Kerry because of

his position on Iraq.

[robbedvoter]

11. I do, They were Republicans. And a Naderite. Again, he won, but...

[AP]

12. That's crazy. Nader got 0% of the vote, right? And turnout was a record...

...high.

I can't believe there so many votes out there for an explictly anti-war candidate. Kerry had no problem convincing people that Bush was making mistakes in Iraq and that Kerry would go in a different direction. Kerry's problem was more that any discussion of the war hurt him (because it deflected the focus on the economy). And anti-war candidate would have meant a debate ENTIRELY about war, and there were just not enough Americans out there who would vote for a Democrat who sounded like he wouldn't stand tall for America after 9/11.

If there were anti-war non-voters out there, the media would have been all over it. I knew DOZENS of middle of the roaders who said they'd vote for Bush if Dean ran, and any Dem other than Dean. In my circle of aquaintances, Dean was the most divisive candidate. People felt passionate about him both ways.

[Skwmom]

24. If Kerry was so convincing, 70% of his voters wouldn't have

been people casting a vote against Bush (and not for Kerry).

Furthermore, while new voter turnout increased, is there any data on voters who voted in the last election who said screw it, I'm staying home?

Kerry never closed the deal on being able to convince people that he could handle the war on terror. The Democratic party continues to be known as the mommy party. That bodes really well for the Democrats considering terrorism will probably be an issue for many elections to come.

Democrats falsely believed that by giving Bush a blank check for war it would keep them from being painted as weak on national security. They failed to realized that many would just view them as followers of the strong national security republicans (but never leaders) or political opportunists who would do or say anything to further their own political aspirations.

[AP]

27. I really don't think that Kerry lost votes because he wasn't anti-war.

Democratic primary voters had a choice between the anti-war candidates and they didn't chose the anti-war candidates (and the anti-war candidates weren't all that anti-war: Dean was only anti-this war, and Clark had his own problems delimiting just how anti-war he was).

There was record turnout. People were very motivated. The people who were maddest about the war had the sense to vote against Bush. To go after anti-war voters, the democrats would have had to sacrifice a lot of other voters.

[sandnsea]

21. I know the opposite

People who wouldn't vote for him because they thought the anti-war contingent would force him to abandon Iraq. I got that line much more often than I did people looking for a complete anti-war candidate. Only a small percentage of Americans think pulling the troops out now is a good idea.

[AP]

7. I don't think Gep ever won anything that wasn't gerrymandered.

He seemed like a decent guy, but he was on the biggest losing streak in Democratic politics.

[fujiyama]

9. I doubt

he would have carried Missouri. It would have been just a bit more likely of Gep carrying MO than JE carrying NC. Neither was likely. We need to remember that Gephardt has never won a statewide race. I heard he isn't liked very much outside of his district in his state.

I might have thought differently if MO was about as close as it was last time, but this time it was a blowout. Bush won it by 8-9 points. I don't think even Gep, being from the state and everything, would have added enough to make up that kind of margin. Being from the state generally adds 4-5 points.

He may have swung OH, but here we're talking about a little more than a hundred and fifty thousand votes. It's difficult to say what could have got us that many more. I personally doubt it.

[Mike L]

44. I don't think Gep would have won MO, but........

I think he would have won Ohio and Iowa.

[missouri dem]

10. Dick Gephardt is one hell of a fine man but I doubt that he could have

carried Missouri. His base is St. Louis and labor. Neither are popular with rural Missouri. Edwards would have run much better here.

[demgrrrll]

13. Agree across the board adding that there are old Dump Gephardt

bumper stickers on Pacers and Fetivas all over town so his love affair with St. Louis is not entirely mutual and has not been entirely mutual for many years. I think his last race with Federer was a little closer than expected.

[JohnKleeb]

14. I dunno

He would have made a fine pick honestly, I really like and respect the man, and frankly will miss him on CSPAN, I know we don't always agree on foreign policy issues with Gephardt but I think Gephardt is the kind of guy we want in our party on economic issues.

[BleedingBlue]

15. Gephardt isn't pretty enough

Start thinking Evan Bayh on the ticket. He probably won't bring you Indiana but he's got legs on lots of issues the fundies want to monopolize.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi BleedingBlue!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. No.......

......God, I'll never understand the love affair with Gephardt as a Presidential contender, a guy who rarely even wins his Congressional races by a safe margin.....

[SoCalDem]

17. nope

.

[bklyncowgirl]

18. I doubt it.

Gephardt might have been more convincing on economic issues. I liked his stand against NAFTA and GATT, but his clear enthusiasm for the Iraq war (the Rose Garden photo)would have only driven antiwar voters to Ralph Nader. Kerry at least had some forethought to put some qualifying remarks on the record at the time of the vote. In addition, I hate to say it but Gephardt quite frankly makes Kerry look like Mr. Charisma. Gephardt also earned the disdain of the Deaniacs who rightly or wrongly blame him for bringing down their candidate.

I think the winning combination for the Democrats would be an economic populist who can talk to ordinary people in a non-pandering, jargon free style, walks the walk on family values and lives a personally modest lifestyle (being from working class background a plus but not mandatory) while advocating a strong but sensible defense and foreign policy.

[Rhiannon12866]

28. Gephardt did not have enthusiasm for the Iraq war

And I am more than a little sick of that photo. He voted for it for IWR for the same reason that Kerry did. And he was duped and lied to by this lying president in the same way that Ted Kennedy was. Why else do you think that he was so angry, the same way that Ted Kennedy has been? He's the one who coined the term "miserable failure!"

[JohnKleeb]

29. and I quoth

"I think the winning combination for the Democrats would be an economic populist who can talk to ordinary people in a non-pandering, jargon free style, walks the walk on family values and lives a personally modest lifestyle (being from working class background a plus but not mandatory) while advocating a strong but sensible defense and foreign policy."
That sounds like Gep to me.

[Rhiannon12866]

35. It sure does. For quite awhile, I was sure that he was our candidate

And I was more than willing to get behind him. But I listened to more than the sound bytes and the news clips and the cracks about his lack of charisma. I saw one interview that he did on "The Daily Show" that totally blew me away. And it had the same effect on Jon Stewart. He said, while reeling back in his chair, "you really want this!" He did, and deserved it for many reasons. He worked hard for 27 years to reach a leadership position, but risked his entire career for one last shot at the nomination.:-(

And I listened to him on "Hardball," explaining his vote. He was lied to, as John Kerry was lied to, and Ted Kennedy was lied to. This administration lies. And now they know and are pissed, but they are remembered on the news as the two guys who voted "for the war," which is a great simplification and inaccuracy And Ted Kennedy worked with Bush* on "no child left behind" and also was lied to and totally screwed over. And he's mad as hell.:grr:

Gephardt had the values that the Bush* administration aspires to, the experience that they're lacking, especially with the exit of Colin Powell, and the ability to work well with others that they never have had and never will.:grr:

[Piperay]

19. Maybe if he had been on the ticket

in the V.P. spot he could have helped carry some red union states. JMO
:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

37. I thought that he deserved the VP spot and was sure that he'd get it

I thought that we could use his experience and ties to labor and middle America. Then I saw Kerry and Edwards together and thought that they were our dream ticket. Maybe they were. We'll never know.:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

20. NO, dammit. What we needed was LEADERSHIP. STRENGTH.

THAT is what we needed. We didn't get it, or not enough of it, at least.

Kerry was great, but he wasn't enough. We need a tough motherfucker who isn't going to take any shit.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. No one will ever know.

Questions like that will not only drive you crazy, but will be a complete waste of time/energy.

[Gyre]

25. Why is the sky blue?

[American Tragedy]

26. I hate to say this, but I'll be blunt

He's boring. Yeah, I know Kerry often comes across as aloof, even cadaverous, but Gephardt is just terribly uninspiring. I liked him fine, but even with the specter of Bush, I would struggle to get excited enough to be able to sell him to undecideds.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Gephardt may have carried Missouri

and someone like Bill Nelson could have carried Florida. Nelson is a former astronaut and a sensible Evangelical. Even Bob Graham would have been an asset to the ticket.

Edwards did not even carry his own state!

[sleipnir]

32. Could Richard Gephardt have won any blue state?

Unlikely, he would have done worse than Kerry. No one would have voted for him aside from the centrists. David Cobb would likely now have 9% of the popular vote if Gephardt had run.

[HelpIsOnTheWayDamnit]

34. You betcha

Missouri and Iowa would have come along with Gephardt.

[Rhiannon12866]

36. I think so, as well

This was one of my reasons for supporting him. I thought that he could have had a big impact in the Midwest. They were kind of left out in this election.:shrug:

On edit: Welcome to DU, HelpIsOnTheWayDamnit! I only wish that it was. But we've got your back. Glad to have you with us!:hi:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mike L]

38. I think Gephardt would have won Ohio

and won the election. I kept wondering whether ANY of the primary candidates could have won the election. After coming to the conclusion that the other top 3 (Edwards, Clark, Dean) probably would not have won either, I quickly recalled the others and Gephardt stood out.

I think he would have been the "generic Democrat" who always beat * in the polls. He has nothing really negative about him. He served in the National Guard (honorably, unlike *). His pro-labor stance would have given him populist appeal in Ohio. He has the experience to be President, and he sounds like John Wayne.

While he didn't sit on the House Armed Services, Intelligence, or Foreign Relations committees, he wouldn't have had Kerry's negatives either-- missed Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, 1971 Senate testimony, habit of saying dumb things. Rove would still have tried to use Gephardt's Senate voting record against him, but I don't think Rove's attack on Kerry's voting record had any effect. I remember Gephardt was mentioned as a "safe" running mate for Kerry after the primaries.

Yes, he was "for" the war, but Kerry was too (I think?), and the left still voted for Kerry. I believe the left would have voted against Bush regardless of who was running. All things considered, I think Gephardt would have won the election.

[Rhiannon12866]

46. Neither Kerry nor Gephardt were "for" the war

Both voted in favor of giving the president the authority to use force against Saddam to give him the leverage to bring this issue back to the U.N., to get the weapons inspectors back in and "keep the peace." The quote is from Bush*. It's then that Bush* blew it. He rushed to war with no plan and betrayed the promises that he made to Congress to use diplomacy and seek a peaceful solution. Gephardt is generally blamed more than Kerry for his vote, since he made that damning appearance in the Rose Garden, alongside Bush*. But Kerry was also tarred for his vote, the infamous quote of "voting for the war before voting against it." Both voted to support the president, hoping to keep the peace, not realizing, as they do now, that this man, and this administration, lies. And Kerry (along with Edwards) voted against the $87 billion for Iraq because he did not approve of the way that Bush* was handling any of this. This has been turned into sound bytes and photo ops by the Bush* cabal and the media and does not reflect the truth about either candidates' stance on Bush*'s illegal war. Sorry to go on, but I get it, and it drives me crazy that this is so widely misunderstood.:grr:

BTW, certainly I agree with you, that Gephardt was an experienced, solid candidate who might have done very well for us. I thought that he'd get the nomination or, at least, the VP spot. I thought that he deserved it and I supported him. But I also thought, after seeing Kerry and Edwards, together, that they seemed like a winning combination. They may have been. We'll never know.:shrug:

[Mike L]

50. "Both voted in favor of giving the president the authority "

Yes, I know that the Iraq resolution was not a resolution "for war", but I tried to cut it short. The Dean people started calling the resolution the IWR, and the media joined in. However, as I recall, Gep was still "for" the war (said he still thought it was a good move) even after the invasion. We can debate what Kerry's position was on the war after the invasion, but I think we STILL don't know. He seemed to say he would have invaded even "knowing then what we know now". Rove spun it as Kerry being for the war, and the media reported that version. Of course, Kerry was not specific because he was trying to play both sides. Then Kerry came out against the war because his poll numbers dropped. I guess he was sorta for and against the war?

Anyway, with Gep having one steady position "for" the war, I think he would have done better with Independents, and the left would have voted against Chimp anyway out of spite. I know I was ABB. Nader pretty much self-destructed by accepting GOP money and signatures to get on state ballots. I think the Greens would have rejected Nader regardless of whether Kerry or Gep headed the Dem ticket.

[Rhiannon12866]

53. Well, I never seem to manage to cut it short, LOL!

But I understand that you understand. I am just so sick of hearing those sound bytes about Kerry, whose position, as I understand it, was not pro-invasion, but for making sure that Saddam did not become a threat. He totally disapproved of how Bush* handled it, so voted against the $87 billion, but this vote is also constantly misinterpreted. But I agree with you, he tried to play both sides, for fear of alienating anyone, and confused everybody in the process.:crazy:

As for Gephardt, I have a friend who worked for him, and admired him greatly, so listened very closely to what he had to say, trying to understand exactly where he stood. He did vote for the war, but only after discussing the intelligence with those he trusted to know what was going on. He was had, the same as all of us. It's really a shame, what happened with Gephardt, since I had high hopes for him.:-(

I was also ABB, though my candidate was Kucinich. However, I am also realistic. After really listening to Gephardt, I felt that he had a good chance and was certainly sincere. And after really listening to Kerry, I began to admire his leadership skills, his message and his intelligence.:-)

Gephardt's steadfastness may have played better with Independents. As for the Nader folks, I don't think that we ever had a chance with them. They are people who wouldn't otherwise vote.:shrug:

[Mike L]

55. I had never heard of Kucinich before the primaries.

While I thought he was a little "out there" during the primaries, I came to respect him as the left-left wing of the Democratic party. I like most of his positions, and he is not afraid to take a position. While I was against the war, I think that we must stand up some type of government in Iraq before we leave. (The problem is that Chimp never intends to fully leave.) Kucinich's "get out of Iraq now" position is the main problem that I had with him. I didn't think it was very realistic.

[LSdemocrat]

39. Gephardt would have done worse

He generally lacks passion and perfectly symbolizes failed leadership of the Dems in the House.

He's an OK public speaker at best and probably would have been creamed like Mondale was in 1984

[funkybutt]

42. one of the articles in The Nation suggests he could have n/t

[kostya]

43. It might have been the first time I'd have withheld my vote for Pres.

[Mike L]

45. Aww, come on. You would have voted against *.

You know it.

[kostya]

54. If OR was blue with Gephardt, probably not.

Gephardt as the Dem candidate to me is equivalent of Dole for the Repubs in '96 (mirror-image party-wise of course).

[EndElectoral]

47. No

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

48. Oh Lord

where's that pic Dookus has that has the guy on it saying "Not THIS shit again?"

Problem: Gephardt wasn't the nominee and wasn't even close.

Answer: No. With the other side rigging the vote we could have run Jesus Christ dripping with the blood of the lamb and several problems in several counties in a couple of battleground states would have STILL given it to bush.


We HAVE to get these elections right or nothing else really matters, people. I have talked to more people in the last week who have said they are not sure any longer what the point of voting is, if they don't know if it even is counted or not.

[lojasmo]

49. Since you like it so much

Kerry is a bloviating bore who doesn't know how to use the english language to capture the hearts of americans. His campaign was the worst I've ever seen.

[Mike L]

52. It was pretty damn bad.

Kerry wasn't the candidate we thought we were buying in the primaries. Iowans didn't know about his 1971 Senate testimony or the fact he used the obscure Navy three purple heart rule to leave Vietnam in 4 months. I don't think that anyone knew he was capable of saying so many dumb things and not taking a firm position on the War. Dumb things-- I voted for.....before I voted against it; sensitive war; global test; terrorism...nuisance. You would think that a 20 year politician would have learned something.

[lojasmo]

56. He did.

People in massachusetts buy his bullshit.

[ventvon]

51. No

[JHBowden]

57. Nader would have gotten 5%.

I'm not certain how Gephardt would have made it up.